Wikipedia:Editor review/Breawycker

Breawycker
Hi. I just went though an unsuccessful RFA, and was told to try an editor review, so I want some feedback on my editing so I can have a successful RFA, and become a better editor. Breawycker (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions are my reverting via Huggle, Twinkle, and Igloo. Also my contributions also included, reporting disruptive users and reporting inappropriate usernames I am pleased by both, but mostly by the reporting disruptive users and usernames.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * One user that has cause me stress is Thedarkocean blamed me for something that 190.154.212.48 did, but I handled it like I was supposed to by not yelling at him or reporting him or anything like that I apologized to him, and told him it was 190.154.212.48, not me and that was the end of it. Another user that has given me trouble is Robby the Robot who vandalized my talk page and his after I warned him, but unlike with thedarkocean I solved it by reverting the edits and reporting him but with good reason as he had vandalized wikipedia.
 * One user that has cause me stress is Thedarkocean blamed me for something that 190.154.212.48 did, but I handled it like I was supposed to by not yelling at him or reporting him or anything like that I apologized to him, and told him it was 190.154.212.48, not me and that was the end of it. Another user that has given me trouble is Robby the Robot who vandalized my talk page and his after I warned him, but unlike with thedarkocean I solved it by reverting the edits and reporting him but with good reason as he had vandalized wikipedia.

 Reviews 
 * 1) I will jump in and offer my two cents, but will leave the request open, because I do not believe that I am the best person to offer an in-depth review. When I opposed you in your RfA, my primary reason for doing so was not because of any glaring incompetencies or failures, but simply because you did not have enough experience, in my opinion. I am not big on "editcountitis", but in your particular instance, it did raise an alarm. In your time here on WP, you only have about 1800 (if my memory serves me correctly) edits. In my humble opinion, that is not enough time to be able to get a firm grasp on the "how" and "why" things are done the way that they are. As an administrator, you need to at least understand - if not fully "get" - both aspects. As a starting point, I would suggest that you do more work in the article space. I very quickly glanced at the composition of your edits and found approximately 40% of them to be in the user talk space. While communication is important in the building of an encyclopedia, the thing that needs to be remembered is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. While I certainly can not speak for anyone else who chose to offer their opinion, that was something that I felt you had not done enough of to be given the mop. You appear to be handy with a couple of the automated scripts... might I suggest sitting down at your computer every once in awhile and just clicking "Random article"? Inevitably, you will come across things that could be done to those articles that you are taken to, not only using the tools, but also in regard to presenting you with opportunities to add content where it may be sorely lacking. Cheers! --Strikerforce (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How am I doing now?--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 00:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Hey there, Breawycker. I'll review you too. For the first part, as you heard above, adminship is not somthing that you request at around 1500 edits. I have 4500, and I'm contemplating maybe running at the end of next year, when I (hopefully), will have about 10,000 or 12,000 edits, a standard that you might want to follow. But enough of that. You asked how you were doing now. I'll take this to mean post-RfA. Here goes:

Antivandalism

Your antivandalism, post-Rfa, seems really good, although your reports to WP:UAA and WP:AIV have dropped from a large amount to four.

Content

Your' content creation also seems good, although not post Rfa. A thing that bothers me is thatyou have no created articles, along with nearly no content expansion edits post-Rfa (I'm disregarding cleanup, copyediting). This isn't an instant no-no, but content is widely measured as experience on Wikipedia. So as to counteract the large amount of anti-vandalism edits, I'd suggest finding a few topics that you like that have very short articles or none at all, and then start writing, with the right sources and so forth. I did, and I managed to write a FA. If you try, you can do so too.

Micelany

Some things pop out to me. You have a great use of edit summaries. One thing I would suggest is to not overdue statuses and etc. It's like updating an "Edits" userbox continously on the basis that you just did another edit. Also, if you mention that fact that you were around for five years, state that you were active for about half a year. It's kind of misleading.

So, to sum things up. You are off to a good start, post-Rfa is coming better along than other people who quit after they don't pass, and iti is visible that you could make a great admin after some experience. If you want, I could help teach you about some content related ropes, but that's up to you to decide. Buggie111 (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)